56 thoughts on “Barack Obama’s Ego”

  1. But the government will only shut down if Obama vetoes the budget that comes to his desk.

    Uh, no. The government could also shut down if no continuing resolution comes to Obama’s desk. That is, by far, the more likely scenario. Has Reynolds forgotten that we have a Senate?

    Provoke a government shutdown that can be blamed on the House GOP.

    So it was Obama who came up with the idea of tying the continuing resolution to Obamacare repeal?

  2. “But the government will only shut down if Obama vetoes the budget that comes to his desk.”

    With all due respect to the professor from tennessee, he’s wrong here. Dead wrong.

    There are at least a couple of reasonable scenarios for a shutdown.

    1) The senate does not floor a budget CR.

    2) The senate floors one under unanimous consent and the GOP throws out 200 amendments, each needing a vote and debate.

    3) The Senate floors a bill under a 60 vote cloture, with a limited number of amendments say 0-4 and Cruz, Lee, Paul, moran, scott do a rotating fillibuster, that could be 150 hours of debate, easy, maybe more.

    4) Reid spends a couple of days, negotiating with McConnel, works up a deal by say thursday morning, only to find out that cruz, lee, scott, eat up 30 hours of debate on the bill and reid works it hard but, the bill doesn’t come out until say friday evening. At that point, Boehner has the weekend to whip and he’s got one nominal day, where the members are coming back monday afternoon, but, the whip count is poor.
    Say the dems aren’t voting for the deal in the house, but, the House GOP Teabag caucus is bailing out because it only defunds ‘ part of Obamacare’.

    5) Lets say Reid cuts a deal with McConnel, moves a bill to defund say 40% of Obamacare, or eliminate the individual mandate, the bill comes to the house, but boehner modifies it to defund 99% of Obamacare,
    and sends it to the senate again. (Think Political hot potato).

    So, I’m not even getting into obscure things, like some backbencher like Bachmann or Gohmert invoking
    privileged motions, under house rules to jump ahead of the CR debate.

    So, lots of ways the system jams up.

    I’m okay with the GOP forcing a shutdown, so they can force a privileged vote on Obamacare or even force a debate directly with the white house. It’s a legitimate tool, much like impeachment.

    Heck, one of those privileged motions is impeachment. We could see the House backbench vote up an impeachment bill on obamacare because Obama didn’t negotiate on this. Maybe the Teabaggers can come down to DC, put on a whole three ring circus to force the senate to hold that trial first.

    but getting back to point, there is 5-7 ways to end up in shutdown long before any CR hits Obama’s inbox.

    1. I’m pretty sure that the piece was in the context of a bill reaching Obama’s desk. Glenn isn’t stupid. Obviously there are other ways for the government to shut down. But regardless of how it happens, including an Obama veto, the media and Dems (but I repeat myself) will blame the Republicans.

      1. I’m pretty sure that the piece was in the context of a bill reaching Obama’s desk.

        Why put the piece in that context, when no one expects such a scenario?

        Glenn isn’t stupid.

        So he knows what he’s writing isn’t true, but writes it anyway?

        Obviously there are other ways for the government to shut down.

        Including the most likely scenarios. Why is Reynolds ignoring them?

        regardless of how it happens, including an Obama veto, the media and Dems (but I repeat myself) will blame the Republicans

        Reynolds and USA Today are the flip side of that prediction: he’s saying that regardless of how it happens, it’ll be Obama’s fault.

      2. “I’m pretty sure that the piece was in the context of a bill reaching Obama’s desk. ”

        He needs to say this, you know, that old, read people and things in the direct meaning of their words, not trying to add anything to it.

        “Glenn isn’t stupid.”

        Nevertheless, he gets plenty of stuff wrong.

        And under the reading what people write, I never said he was stupid, I just pointed in all due respect, there were lots of ways we get to a shutdown. A prospect I have no problem with.

        It may horrify you, but i was in DC through all the shutdowns of the 90’s. Life continued.
        The subway system ran, Water flowed in pipes, lots of feds took long weekends, to
        take their kids out to trips to the beach.

        The GOP likes government shutdowns, it’s okay, really.

        I’m okay with the House impeaching Obama too. Heck, they should impeach Biden.
        If they have a case, they can take it to the senate, and get CJ Roberts to run the trial.

    2. By the way, “Teabaggers” is a very offensive term (on the slight chance that you weren’t aware of that). It’s one that gay people tend to use, though, so maybe that explains it.

      1. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnypictures/ig/Funny-Protest-Signs/Teabagging-For-Jesus.htm

        http://lh3.ggpht.com/_6-Uxg3BTLvg/S7YmW3SdrjI/AAAAAAAABkI/yA7EENnCzuw/teabag-the-liberal-dems-image-by-moronswithsigns-on-photobucket_12584151747931.png?imgmax=800

        http://lh4.ggpht.com/_6-Uxg3BTLvg/S7YlDTconII/AAAAAAAABkE/0GeMOUS91gA/tea-bag-o-tampa.jpg?imgmax=800

        as the name is one the early advocates claimed for themselves, I don’t see the problem
        with using the title.

          4. “Only if we’re idiots, who don’t understand that an insult”
            Ah the retreat to common vulgarity.

            For someone who enjoys vulgarity, personal attacks and insults,
            you seem awfully thinskinned about political debate.

      2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22

        Lets see what Wikipedia says.
        The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Some members of the movement adopted the term as a verb, and a few others referred to themselves as “teabaggers.”[209][210][211] News media and progressive commentators outside the movement began to use the term mockingly and derisively, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the derogatory joke.[212][213][211] It has been used by several media outlets to humorously refer to Tea Party-affiliated protestors.[214] Some conservatives have advocated that the non-vulgar meaning of the word be reclaimed.[211]

        http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/teabagger

        As a reference to members of the currently active Tea Party, the word has been used in speech and print by both liberals and conservatives. In this context, the term “teabagger” is a reasonably conceived informal name for an affiliate of the Tea Party, and as a word in the news, it earned a mention for the year 2009.

        By the way, do you have a problem with gay sexual practices?

        2. Because Wikipedia is such a reliable source on issues like this.

          By the way, do you have a problem with gay sexual practices?

          Well, I find them disgusting, if by males, and wouldn’t want to have to engage in them. But I’d say that’s a pretty normal heterosexual response. Why, do you enjoy them?

          1. “Well, I find them disgusting,”

            well, I try not to judge someone by their personal lives.

            Given the Supreme Court decided in Lawrence v Texas that “The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process “, so if someone has a constitutional right to intimate sexual conduct,
            I don’t bother myself with it.

          2. “Because Wikipedia is such a reliable source on issues like this.”

            Why yes, that Breitbart video, is so inappropriate.

          3. well, I try not to judge someone by their personal lives.

            Who said that I “judged them by their personal lives”? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? You asked a question, I answered it. I find eating raw bugs disgusting too. What’s your point?

            Oh, wait. You don’t really have one.

            Given the Supreme Court decided in Lawrence v Texas that “The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process “, so if someone has a constitutional right to intimate sexual conduct, I don’t bother myself with it.

            I don’t “bother myself with it either.” Again, what is your point?

            Oh, right, rinse, repeat.

          4. Because Wikipedia is such a reliable source on issues like this.

            Isn’t it? Most Wikipedia entries (including this one) link to supporting documentation. It seems lazy to dismiss anything from Wikipedia rather than engaging with the supporting documentation.

          5. The sources have no relevance. That some people in the Tea Party movement were clueless and didn’t understand the vulgar meaning of the phrase, and that some, like Breitbart (maybe, I’m not going to bother to look it up) took it up as a badge of honor, doesn’t meant that most don’t find it offensive.

            Hey, I know a lot of people who agree with DCguy’s political positions who think the term douchenozzle is great, so I’ll just apply it to him, too, right? Who cares what the hell he thinks?

      3. It is an acceptable term under the New Civility guidelines issued by Obama. I had to check but they also allow for “political grandstanding” during memorial services regardless of the politics of the people being memorialized.

  3. “By the way, ‘Teabaggers’ is a very offensive term (on the slight chance that you weren’t aware of that).”

    As I have often noted, here and elsewhere: Better a teabagger for liberty than a butt-boy for Obama and the State. You know, like Jim and dcguy.

      1. It is amazing how a homophobic slur is suddenly acceptable to “progressives”. Are there any ideals you guys live by or is it all just a bunch of BS?

        1. “You really don’t have this “reading” thing down, do you?”

          Anyone who has to put up invisible contextual claims as predicate conditions
          for the statements of Glenn Reynolds doesn’t seem to understand reading.

  4. Well, Professor Reynolds said, “But the government will only shut down if Obama vetoes the budget that comes to his desk.”

    Clearly, he was mistaken (or misspoke) regarding that “only”, as it’s predicated on the budget passing the Senate (rather unlikely, and surely not a certainty). He ought to have worded that differently.

    I therefor find Professor Reynolds guilty of being human, and thus making a small mistake. 🙂

    Other than that, I found the article spot-on.

    Here’s a thought to ponder; of the government does shut down, what’s the risk of people starting to notice just how little said shutdown affects them – in other words, just how little the government does for all the money it costs us? Sounds like a great ad for smaller government to me. (And I’ll be hit by a shutdown, due to it costing me a chance to see a national park I’ll be close to and have wanted to see since early childhood. Most people won’t feel any effect at all.).

    As for the Republicans, I think they’re setting themselves up to lose. For one thing, they ought to phrase things differently. For example, instead of saying they’ve defunded Obamacare, IMHO they’d be far better off to say they’ve passed a CR that funds the entire government except for Obamacare implementation, and then point out that Obama himself has been seeking to delay Obamacare implementation. (which he has, for part of it).

    My guess, and I hope I’m wrong – the Republicans will fold, due to lack of backbone and principle amongst many of their members in congress. (their recent amnesty push being further proof of this). IMHO, unless they are going to play this to win (Stick it out until the other side folds) better to not play at all.

    On the other hand, if they suddenly transform into vertebrates and win this fight, or even come away with much of what they want, it’ll change everything – they’ll have largely stopped something that most Americans don’t want, and are growing more fearful of by the day. Plus, they’ll have shown how little we actually get from the huge and expensive government we have, which is a great ad for their smaller government/lower taxes agenda.

    All it requires is having some spine – and that’s why I doubt they’ll succeed.

    2. thus making a small mistake

      It’s not a small mistake — it’s part of Reynolds reframing the issue as “Obama vs. everyone else”, when the issue is really “53% of the House vs. 54% of the Senate (and Obama)”.

      All it requires is having some spine

      Aka a lot of chutzpah. The House GOP is a narrow majority in one half of one of the three branches of government. The idea that 220 House members should be able to throw a tantrum and keep the rest of the government from functioning until it does whatever the House wants violates the spirit of separation of powers that the Constitution is based on.

      Imagine that the situation were reversed: Dems retake the House, and the GOP retake the Senate and White House. Should that give Pelosi the power to force a Republican Senate and White House to implement her agenda (cap-and-trade, immigration reform, single-payer healthcare, union card check)?

      1. Imagine that the situation were reversed: Dems retake the House, and the GOP retake the Senate and White House. Should that give Pelosi the power to force a Republican Senate and White House to implement her agenda (cap-and-trade, immigration reform, single-payer healthcare, union card check)?

        No, but then, it’s the Constitution that doesn’t grant her that power. Nothing that the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional requirement for them to fund awful laws, and they hold the power of the purse. But we already know that neither Pelosi or you give a damn about the Constitution.

        1. Nothing that the Republicans are doing is unconstitutional.

          And it wouldn’t be unconstitutional for Speaker Pelosi to refuse to fund the government, or raise the debt ceiling, until a Republican president and Senate capitulated to Pelosi’s policy wish list. But such a stance clearly violates the spirit of the separation of powers.

          There is no Constitutional requirement for them to fund awful laws

          The House does not have to take any action to fund Obamacare, it was funded by the PPACA passed in 2010.

          1. The House has to take action to fund the entire federal government, every year, regardless of what stupid law some past idiots in the House passed. Again, we know you don’t give a damn about the Constitution, or even seem to know anything about it, but a few of us still do.

          2. I appreciate your arguments but doesn’t the manner in which Obamacare was passed pretty much render any arguments about proprietary moot?

          3. The House has to take action to fund the entire federal government, every year,

            I don’t think you are right about that. Mandatory spending continues with or without House action, and Obamacare (like Social Security, etc.) is mandatory spending. Congress can fail to fund Social Security for the fiscal year starting October 1, and the Social Security checks will still go out.

            See this explainer.

            Again, we know you don’t give a damn about the Constitution, or even seem to know anything about it, but a few of us still do.

            This seems like a straightforward question to settle. I’ve pointed you towards evidence that some government spending (such as Social Security) continues whether or not Congress passes a funding measure. If you believe that’s incorrect, point me to contrary evidence. Name calling doesn’t advance the argument.

  5. To our friends on the left, does Obama bear any responsibility for the possibility of a government shutdown or the creation of the climate which we find ourselves in today?

    1. He doesn’t bear responsibility for the possibility of a government shutdown. Imagine if the Democrats had threatened to shut down the government in 2007 unless Bush repealed his tax cuts, or implemented union card check, or took some other major step in complete opposition to his agenda; would Bush have borne responsibility for that? Of course not.

      1. Interesting, you can’t even bring yourself to say that Obama is partly to blame. I am guessing that every regular commenter would say Republicans are partly to blame but you are exceptionally dogmatic.

        Perhaps one of the problems we face today as a country is that some people think Obama can literally do no wrong. We would be better served if Democrats put pressure on their own leaders to act responsibly instead of only attacking their opponents in the most offensive ways imagineable. IMO, after the Democrats conduct under Bush, it is incumbant on them to hold their leaders to at least the same standards they held others to so vociferously not so long ago.

  7. Just a comment on commenters. We do indeed seem to have a resident douchenozzle in the house. Whatever else you want to say about Jim, while his arguments are generally illogical, often non-factual, and disingenuous, he is generally civil, even when provoked by incivility. I can’t say that about “DCguy.”

  8. Why, when the House holds 42 completely useless votes to abolish Obamacare, you call that “taking a principled stand,” but when Obama insists that Congress fund a law they passed you call that “ego?”

    Seems to me that both sides of this fight have either “ego” or “principle” as a motivator.

    1. Congress fund a law they passed

      The 111th Congress passed PPACA. The 113th did not. And the 110th Congress attempted to defund what was passed by the 107th Congress. When it was the 110th Congress doing it, Obama was for it. Back then, Reid-Feingold was just an amendment to hide in a Water Bill rather than up front in a budget document.

  9. “The House has to take action to fund the entire federal government, every year, regardless of what stupid law some past idiots in the House passed.”

    well leaving aside the logical inconsistency of that statement and reading it as focused only on the
    first two clauses, it’s still incorrect. Much of the US Governments actions are actually funded on
    an automatic basis. Much of it’s funded on a 5 year basis, it’s only the year to year discretionary
    actions that are funded yearly. Social Security, Medicare, Highway funds, anything with a
    trust fund, automatic tax and enabling legislation funds on an ongoing basis.

    The only real limit on these is the depth of the trust funds and limits on the debt ceiling.

    Now, if you hit the debt limit or if the trust funds run dry, then it’s ugly, but it’s just not
    as simple as your first clause seemed to mean.

      1. “No Congress can commit a future one to an expenditure. Read the Constitution. ”

        “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

        and
        “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

        There is a big difference between What you say and what the constitution says.

        If the 1st Congress of the United states were to make a law that says ” Every year the US Treasury shall spend $1 million dollars on a fireworks display in Washington DC”, it would remain in power as law, but the 5th congress could put an end to it as “Wasteful, silly and unneeded”.

        Now the 1st Congress can’t bind the 5th Congress, but if a spending plan is in law,
        it continues until it’s changed. It’s why most laws have some sort of sunset provision.

        Really. I would think the “Constitutional Conservatives” would actually understand the constitution.

        2. Douchenozzle simply sucks at analogies.

          To be clear, if the 1st Congress passes a law to have a fireworks display every year; the 5th Congress has plenty of authority to determine just how much is spent. That has always been the case in the United States.

          Further, the concept of defending unpopular laws has long been a tool of the Democrat party.

          1. “To be clear, if the 1st Congress passes a law to have a fireworks display every year; the 5th Congress has plenty of authority to determine just how much is spent. That has always been the case in the United States.”

            Yes, and if the 2nd, 3rd and 4th congress do nothing on Fireworks spending
            issues the law will continue until stopped by the 5th.

            That’s just not what Rand said..

  10. Rand says :
    “The sources have no relevance. That some people in the Tea Party movement were clueless ”

    ROFLOL…

    1. OK, so you want to continue to be a douchenozzle.

      By “clueless,” I meant that they didn’t understand the meaning of a vulgar sexual term.

      We understand that passive-aggressive douchenozzles appreciate an opportunity to laugh at the rubes, who are so unsophisticated. Some think it both quaint, and admirable, that they have been so uncorrupted by the douchenozzles of the world.

      But unlike the douchenozzles of the world, they are not unsophisticated about, or ignorant of, the Constitution or the intentions of the Founders. So they understand, and care about, the important things.

      I’ve banned few people from this website, but from henceforth, Douchenozzle is your official name here.

      Until, of course, you apologize.

      We won’t hold our breath.

      Because you have no soul. Because you have demonstrated yourself to be a douchenozzle.

      1. “We understand that passive-aggressive douchenozzles appreciate an opportunity to laugh at the rubes, who are so unsophisticated. Some think it both quaint, and admirable, that they have been so uncorrupted by the douchenozzles of the world.

        But unlike the douchenozzles of the world, they are not unsophisticated about, or ignorant of, the Constitution or the intentions of the Founders. So they understand, and care about, the important things.”

        I grew up in a big city, i’ve also spent a lot of time in small town america. As much as the people talk about the constitution, very few of them really know what’s in it. Most of them think the Constitution declares the US to be a christian country.

        I also wonder what you mean by “Uncorrupted”.

        BTW calling small town dwellers ‘Rubes’ isn’t particularly deferential either. I always called them Country-folk.

Comments are closed.